atpollard
Well-Known Member
Nonsense. How can someone have eternal life and not be saved. Eternal life is exactly what Jesus promised in John 6.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
John 6.44
- Thread starter Barry Johnson
- Start date
- Status
Sai
Well-Known Member
What was paradise then?
Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. Christians often use the expression, "saved from sin." Salvation is first of all to be saved from the penalty of sin, which is death. There was not a sacrifice any time in the 4000 years before Jesus Christ came that could have remitted sins. Even the perfect life of Jesus Christ could not have remitted anyone's sins. It took his death and the shedding of his blood to remit sins.That was the only thing that could do the job. God could prepare men for his salvation. As judge of all the earth he could justify sinners in anticipation of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. This he did. He justified anyone and everyone who believed what he said to them. Therefore justification is by faith in what God says. Even after Jesus died and rose again, it is the testimony of God that he will save anyone and everyone who comes to him through Jesus Christ. So, even our salvation now is predicated upon believing what God says to us. This is the reason I doubt the message of the Reformed. They do not believe what God says. It is not enough to believe in Jesus, one must believe God.
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Rom 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him (God - Gal 1;1) that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
As clarification, do you see Jn 6 as the following logic chains?
The person being saved to eternal life:
The Father draws a person to Christ -> The person sees Christ -> The Father teaches the person -> The person hears -> and the person learns of the Father -> The person can come to Christ -> The person believes in Christ -> The Father gives the person to Christ -> and the person does come to Christ -> Christ assuredly raises up the person on the last day to eternal life.
The person being lost from eternal life:
The Father draws a person to Christ -> The person seeing does not see Christ -> The Father teaches the person -> The person hearing does not hear -> and the person does not learn of the Father -> The person cannot come to Christ -> The person does not believe in Christ -> The Father does not give the person to Christ -> and the person does not come to Christ -> Christ does not raise up the person on the last day to eternal life.
Could you elaborate on what you exactly mean here? Because the takeaway from reading just what you've written is that we can throw away the entire OT since anyway not a word's been addressed to me and it's not profitable for my salvation today in 2020,... and that none of the OT saints have ever been saved unto eternal life?
Okay, let me get this straight. You're saying that Jn 6 sets two distinct criteria of man for receiving eternal life - 1) to physically and literally 'see' Christ and 2) to believe in His declaration that He's the Son of God?
And further this is not the same criteria that we now have to be saved - just as Abraham's imputed righteousness was based on the very different criteria to believe/be fully persuaded that God is able to fully perform whatever He promises(Rom 4:21), namely to make Abraham the father of many nations. Just as our salvation today is not predicated on believing God would make Abraham the father of many nations, you're saying it similarly shouldn't be predicated on Jn 6 given that it was meant for an entirely different audience.
And when we are arguing that Jn 6 is indeed describing our salvation today, you're holding us up to the first criteria of physically 'seeing' Christ? Have I got this right so far?
You do realize your entire argument stands and falls on simply holding the word 'see' to its literal meaning of physically perceiving something before your very eyes, right? What if the word didn't stand for the physical 'seeing' but more of a mental 'considering' and What if it wasn't a distinct criteria in itself but simply a part of the natural process of believing? Should Jesus have preached Mark 1:15 as Repent, Hear and Believe since faith comes by hearing (Rom 10:14,17)? Similarly, 'considering Jesus' is a natural part of 'believing' what He declares of Himself. Isn't it risky to hang an entire theological doctrine, especially one of such importance, on mere semantics and vocabulary? All it would take to collapse is finding a single other verse in the Bible that disproves your literal usage of the word - I wouldn't hold such fragile theories as truths of God. Kindly re-'consider' your position.
Neither of the above.
None of the people in that room, including the disciples of Jesus, believed that Jesus Christ would die, be buried, and rise again from the dead.Jesus Christ was not attempting to convince them of that. He was not explaining how a person receives eternal life, he only said he would give certain of them eternal life based on the response of what he was teaching. What was that?
He was teaching that he is the Messiah, the son of God, who came down from heaven. He was attempting to persuade them in that room that he was the subject of the OT prophecies of a coming King, and Shepherd of Israel.In this chapter he is emphasizing one of seven of the "I AM" statements he makes in the gospel of John. He says I am the Bread of Life, he that follows me shall never hunger and he that believeth in me shall never thirst. This is Jn 6:35. This is the set up. Just the day before he had been on a mountain (symbolic always of a kingdom) where he had feed 5000 men plus women and children with 5 barley loaves and 2 small fishes with 12 baskets of fragments left over. One loaf for each of the 12 tribes of Israel.Nothing Jesus Christ does is without significance. Five is the number in scripture for grace and Israel was divided into two nations. His provision was sufficient for them all. It was the rulers who were there who missed the meaning, as religious unsaved people always do. They wanted to make Jesus ruler because of the bread he provided not because he was proving his credentials. They are the ones who followed him across the sea and confronted him in the synagogue. The only conclusion one can come to reading this is that given the miracles he performed in their sight there was insanity in that room.What a hold religion had on them.
This miracle was to prove that Jesus Christ is the manna sent down from God. They had been studying about it for 1500 years. What was their reaction? Moses gave us that manna. They missed the whole point of the manna. Moses is a type of the man they were standing in front of. He had fed 5000+ with 2 fishes and 5 loaves.The men in that room would have eternal life if they came to him because he is the eternal man who had the bread and because he would not turn anyone away. A man cannot live without bread and those who believed in him would be raised at the last day because the life was in him.
No reformed believer is ever going to understand John 6 and they are going to misapply the great and wonderful truths from this gospel and lead others to misapply them. One thing all of us must believe is that Jesus Christ is God before we believe he is savior. Sinners cannot be saved unless the blood is shed and applied to the sinner by faith. That is just the truth whether you believe it or not. I hope you do.
Okay, let me get this straight. You're saying that Jn 6 sets two distinct criteria of man for receiving eternal life - 1) to physically and literally 'see' Christ and 2) to believe in His declaration that He's the Son of God?
And further this is not the same criteria that we now have to be saved - just as Abraham's imputed righteousness was based on the very different criteria to believe/be fully persuaded that God is able to fully perform whatever He promises(Rom 4:21), namely to make Abraham the father of many nations. Just as our salvation today is not predicated on believing God would make Abraham the father of many nations, you're saying it similarly shouldn't be predicated on Jn 6 given that it was meant for an entirely different audience.
And when we are arguing that Jn 6 is indeed describing our salvation today, you're holding us up to the first criteria of physically 'seeing' Christ? Have I got this right so far?
You do realize your entire argument stands and falls on simply holding the word 'see' to its literal meaning of physically perceiving something before your very eyes, right? What if the word didn't stand for the physical 'seeing' but more of a mental 'considering' and What if it wasn't a distinct criteria in itself but simply a part of the natural process of believing? Should Jesus have preached Mark 1:15 as Repent, Hear and Believe since faith comes by hearing (Rom 10:14,17)? Similarly, 'considering Jesus' is a natural part of 'believing' what He declares of Himself. Isn't it risky to hang an entire theological doctrine, especially one of such importance, on mere semantics and vocabulary? All it would take to collapse is finding a single other verse in the Bible that disproves your literal usage of the word - I wouldn't hold such fragile theories as truths of God. Kindly re-'consider' your position.
Thank you for replying ivdavid but I am perplexed why you have missed my point. I am asking you why you don't teach a man must see the son and believe on him if you insist that a man must be drawn by the Father to be saved. Nowhere in the NT scriptures is a man required to see the son to be saved and nowhere in the NT scriptures is a man required to be drawn of the Father to be saved. To be drawn of the Father is mentioned one time in the scriptures in a context where the means of salvation is not being taught to a roomful of men who did not have a clue about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, including the men who wrote our NT, the apostles. who did not understand Jesus when he later began to teach them that he was going to Jerusalem to be killed and rise again the third day and who did not believe it when he rose from the dead. Now your teachers have dug down deep and made this drawing of the Father a bedrock doctrine of salvation. It is not true. [snip]
I am preaching Jesus Christ and him crucified and risen again and all men who hears of him can come to him in repentance and faith and he will save all who will.
Last edited by a moderator:
Aren't you getting ahead of yourself? I never mentioned once in either of those logic chains that Jesus was attempting to convince them of His death and resurrection - I was merely asking how you interpret the connections between what's presented in Jn 6, on its own, taking whatever you understand 'believing' to be. So is it still neither of the two?
Abraham was a sinner who believed in God (was fully persuaded that God would do whatever He promised) but did not specifically even know about Christ's resurrection yet. Is Abraham saved - yes or no? Do you also hold being saved/salvation to be different from receiving eternal life?
And I am more so perplexed why you think I have missed your point and why you're asking me the very thing I've already answered.
I do not insist to anyone that a man must be drawn by the Father to be saved - I merely observe a Scriptural truth that that is simply so - just as Christ observes in Jn 6 as to the reason why they haven't believed. What I do insist is that a man must see (mentally consider) the Son and hear the Word of God and believe in Christ, even today. And since logically one cannot believe without hearing and without seeing (mentally considering) the person of Christ, I know the force of it is already contained in the command to "believe".
I asked in the post and I ask again since you've not addressed it - your entire teaching is hanging on you literally reading "seeing" as the physical perception of someone before your very eyes instead of a "mental considering". Why do you insist on this literal reading when all it takes is a single other citation in Scriptures to disprove it?
Sai
Well-Known Member
I think I understand what your saying. Yes the content of faith changed through the years of man’s existence.
I believe that the believers were saved in paradise but were held there until the cross because, salvation is not now nor has it ever been merely that God was big hearted enough to forgive. The fact is that there was a debt that was incurred by man that could not be paid off in time, that debt was paid by God in the blood of Christ.
Incidentally, the knowledge of debt paying is what set me free from bondage as a carnal Christian. I had to reckon myself to be who God says I am and not as the addicted person who I had become. Once I realized that I am the newborn human spirit and when I no longer identified myself by my flesh, I immediately went from an impossible to please God scenario into a faith in God’s declaration of my life pleasing daily existence.
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
You should realize that Greek has more than one expression for "see" and they do mean different things. The more basic word ὁράω has the idea of seeing with the eyes--as in I saw the cars collide. However, the word used in John 6:40 is θεωρέω which carries more of an idea of understanding--as in I see your point. This is probably why the ESV uses the expression "to look on the Son" rather than see. John 6:40 is not talking about a literal seeing as if we were eye-witnesses to a car accident.
The Archangel
Seeing is not to mentally consider in John 6. It is to observe. He is proving he is the bread of life that came down from heaven. They did not have to believe he fed 5000 with 2 fishes and 5 loaves because they saw him do it. This nation had been reading in the scriptures about the manna for 1500 years. This is confirmation that he is Messiah sent down from heaven. A comparison between his actions and the scriptures should have convinced them to believe he came down from heaven. So yes, this generation had to see him because his miracles confirmed his Messianic claims. Those among them who believed the scriptures were drawn to him by the Father. When his generation passed in 70 AD there have been no more miracles.
John 6 is a historical narrative. John is writing about events that happened in time. Jesus came to his own people to establish his kingdom. His kingdom is described in the prophets as being a glorious fruitful kingdom with all the subjects saved and at peace with God and man. The first thing he had to do is to prepare the subjects of his kingdom. They must believe he is this prophet, Messiah. Why? Because, unless a man is born again he cannot enter into his kingdom. John records 7 major miracles of Jesus Christ to confirm his messianic credentials to this nation to whom his promises were made and then at the end of his gospel he gave this reason for writing it;
Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this book, but these are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God and that by believing you might have life through his name. That is Jn 20:30-31.
Every testimony in the book of John is a testimony of believing that Jesus is the son of God. So, knowing that, let me ask you what Jesus was asking the Jews to believe in John 6? Why was the Father drawing them to Jesus, and why were the scriptures, particularly of the manna, so important in this incident? These Jews before the cross should have been able through reason and intellect coupled the miracle he performed with the claim he was making and believed him. Had they believed him here they would have been prepared to be born again and receive his Spirit to indwell them and they would have led the nation to receive him.
The scriptures are reasonable and sensible and they have context that most often is ignored by religion. God intended to save Israel first and through them also save the gentile nations.
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Well... no. The context here is not what you suggest. In v. 40 there is a compound condition--seeing and believing. If it were mere observation, as you suggest, no believer today would be able to meet that criteria, so it can't be mere observation.
Additionally, again, the word θεωρέω used in this context doesn't mean what you want it to mean. Here are two comments on the text:
The verb ‘looks’ (v. 40) renders theōreō. In earlier Greek the verb was frequently used of a particularly perceptive and discerning ‘looking’. In John, however, such use is not consistent. If there is particular perception here, it is because the context, and especially the next clause ‘and believes in him’, specifies the meaning. [1]
The Greek verb which is translated see in this verse includes an element of concentration. Here it is clear that understanding, and not mere vision, is meant, since eternal life is promised to all who see the Son. Earlier in the chapter, however, the same Greek verb was used of a seeing which did not lead to understanding: The disciples … saw Jesus walking on the water …, and they were terrified (6:19). [2]
Blessings,
The Archangel
___________________________________
[1] D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 292.
[2] Barclay Moon Newman and Eugene Albert Nida, A Handbook on the Gospel of John, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1993), 201.
Okay? Isn't that still applicable today - why do you make it sound like this was written only for those historical jews to believe and not for us today? Just because we have added revelations to our understanding of Christ's death and resurrection which we need to believe in, it doesn't take away the fact that we also do affirm He is the Son of God, as written in the Scriptures. It's not either-or, right? Do you not preach He is the Son of God as part of your Gospel message today?
Heb 7:4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
This verse talks about Melchisedec and asks to "consider" how great he was - this can at best be only a mental 'observing' and never a physical 'observing', right? It is in this same sense that even today we preach the Gospel exhorting people to consider how great the Son of God is and to accordingly believe in all that He has done and promises to do - that's Jn 6:40 applicable even today, what is your argument here?
Archangel (pretty high position if you ask me), please do not weary me with Greek. There is no mystery in my copy of the English language,Bible that would cause me to have to relegate my native language to an inferior position in favor of one I don't know in order to understand the ways of God, but God has written his words in simple terms and has sent his Spirit to be our teacher. That is what he says in my copy of the scriptures.I am insulted by those who claim more discernment because of more intellect and education.. It is okay to clarify things as I do by pointing out certain ways the English is translated from the original languages like, for instance, where the English word "world" is a translation of more than one Greek word. Things like that are helpful. Generally speaking though, the context of a word often times gives more clarity. This is true with "see" in John 6. Why is this an issue by intelligent people, such as yourself, who can read statement after statement in the scriptures concerning who Jesus Christ was ministering to at his coming, and why this people were the ones to whom he came. There are acts to the unfolding drama of redemption and 4000 years of human history had passed before Jesus Christ, the only one who could save anybody, came on the scene to get the job done. Surely, someone such as yourself can see the necessity for a preparation for his coming and for his salvation that does not have it's beginning in John 6:44.It is an end of an age in John 6.If you had lived in Gen 6 or the days of Gen 15, or Ex 20 or Jn 6, you could not have had your sins washed away. The one who has been prophesied since Ge 3:15 to be the savior was standing right before the people who had been groomed for 1500 years under a personal relationship with the God of heaven and had his written revelation addressed to them and who were governed under his law and should have believed that he was the one sent from God, given all the evidence they were shown and all the promises made to them. It was through this people that God was was going to evangelize the world and save them. Of course men who have believed the satanic lie that men cannot believe God because they have no will to do it will never accept this truth. I do not know if you are one of those people or not but I do know that men must believe that this man was God before they can believe that he can live a perfect and sinless life and die for the sins of the world and rise again from the dead.There was no shed blood in John 6 but the one who came to shed his blood was there and they could see him. They committed a sin he would not forgive because they saw him and heard him and did not believe. However, in John 6 Jesus was not asking them to believe in the blood he had shed but the blood he will shed. He is asking them to believe he is the Son of God. They did not believe him and it was not because they were not chosen from before the foundation of the world. They did not believe because of the hardness of their hears and the blindness of their eyes and their ignorance.That is the reason they did not have eternal life according to the words right out of the mouth of Jesus Christ and the apostle Paul. God was drawing Israel to Jesus Christ who was God come in the flesh. He is not drawing anybody today that way.He is the invisible God today. Nobody has seen him but he is everywhere present. He is here in Spirit to quicken everyone who will believe in him by indwelling their mortal bodies and that good and glorious gospel came from the Jews
.
He 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Thank you ivdavid for these questions. I will try to answer them.
Seven years passed after the resurrection and ascension to heaven of Jesus Christ before the first gentile was preached to and saved. It ws only then that God opened the door of faith to gentiles. You may read about this in Acts 1-10. It was only after the Jews in Jerusalem persecuted and killed the preachers of Jesus Christ that he saved Saul on the Damascus Road and charged him as the one who would take the gospel to the nations.The theology of all this is explained in Romans 7-11 but this transition that takes place in Acts 10 with Peter and Cornelius, the Roman, being the main characters is explained in Rom 11:beginning at verse 13. There is an order to the scriptures and God really did have a plan. Satanic opposition and unbelief of men delayed it but it did not thwart it. It gave a wonderful opportunity for the gentiles and created a way for God to demonstrate his infinite wisdom.
Eph 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise (The Spirit) in Christ by the gospel:
7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,(IOW, the church puts the wisdom of God on display for heavenly creatures)
11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:
12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.
The purpose was having an entity that was both in him and him in them. He intended that for Israel but they refused and he grafted in the gentiles after stripping the unbelievers away. However, he makes it clear that it does not void the national promises he has covenanted to Israel. They will come to pass in the next age.
14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.
This was prayed on the eve of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. He is praying for those who came to him believing what he was asking them to believe in John 6, that he was sent from God.
For answer to the next question, see my post to the Archangel.
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Interesting... for all of your verbosity, you say practically nothing of substance. Much of your vituperations are nothing more than a so-called red herring...
Ad hominem.
In stating "I am insulted by those who claim more discernment because of more intellect and education.." you simply tell us all that you are happy and comfortable in your abject ignorance, which I suppose you're entitled to. But, your ignorance is no virtue.
Your insistence upon your English translation (KJV, most likely) as a "corrective" to the Greek is laughable. While the KJV is a good translation (one which I like and am quite thankful for), it is not the original text. No translation captures the full nuance of the original. So, your position is one that is impossible to defend in any rational, logical sense. Like the traveler who mis-reads his map as to his point of departure, you have begun your journey in error.
Much of this is the aforementioned red herring fallacy. Your disagreement with me over the word θεωρέω in John 6 has nothing to do with what you've written in the above quote. That you think it does shows a flaw in your thinking as to the issue at hand and to scripture itself. When you say "If you had lived in Gen 6 or the days of Gen 15, or Ex 20 or Jn 6, you could not have had your sins washed away" you have just confined Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David, for example, to hell. There was provision for the forgiveness of sin for these--how else could Moses and Elijah appear with Jesus at the transfiguration?
Again, you are conflating issues here, perhaps so that your obfuscation will hide the real issue in which you've already been shown to be in error. Nevertheless, your statement here calls Calvinists (of which I am one) "satanic," which is, of course, quite silly.
The above statement serves to contradict the understanding of θεωρέω you've been insisting upon. You doggedly assert that John 6 has to be understood as a literal seeing with one's eyes, yet you say "He is the invisible God today. Nobody has seen him but he is everywhere present" and then suppose that He is seen in a figurative way today. So which is it? You insist θεωρέω must mean a literal eyes-on seeing in John 6, but your story changes when today is considered. You can't have it both ways, which is why studying the text in the Greek (or Hebrew in the first testament) is so important.
The study of the original text serves to re-shape our understanding of the text rather than support your efforts to rewrite it.
Of course, if you are interested in some resources on, say, the topic of Biblical Theology, there are many good books I can happily recommend.
Blessings,
The Archangel
Ad hominem.
In stating "I am insulted by those who claim more discernment because of more intellect and education.." you simply tell us all that you are happy and comfortable in your abject ignorance, which I suppose you're entitled to. But, your ignorance is no virtue.
Your insistence upon your English translation (KJV, most likely) as a "corrective" to the Greek is laughable. While the KJV is a good translation (one which I like and am quite thankful for), it is not the original text. No translation captures the full nuance of the original. So, your position is one that is impossible to defend in any rational, logical sense. Like the traveler who mis-reads his map as to his point of departure, you have begun your journey in error.
Much of this is the aforementioned red herring fallacy. Your disagreement with me over the word θεωρέω in John 6 has nothing to do with what you've written in the above quote. That you think it does shows a flaw in your thinking as to the issue at hand and to scripture itself. When you say "If you had lived in Gen 6 or the days of Gen 15, or Ex 20 or Jn 6, you could not have had your sins washed away" you have just confined Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David, for example, to hell. There was provision for the forgiveness of sin for these--how else could Moses and Elijah appear with Jesus at the transfiguration?
Again, you are conflating issues here, perhaps so that your obfuscation will hide the real issue in which you've already been shown to be in error. Nevertheless, your statement here calls Calvinists (of which I am one) "satanic," which is, of course, quite silly.
The above statement serves to contradict the understanding of θεωρέω you've been insisting upon. You doggedly assert that John 6 has to be understood as a literal seeing with one's eyes, yet you say "He is the invisible God today. Nobody has seen him but he is everywhere present" and then suppose that He is seen in a figurative way today. So which is it? You insist θεωρέω must mean a literal eyes-on seeing in John 6, but your story changes when today is considered. You can't have it both ways, which is why studying the text in the Greek (or Hebrew in the first testament) is so important.
The study of the original text serves to re-shape our understanding of the text rather than support your efforts to rewrite it.
Of course, if you are interested in some resources on, say, the topic of Biblical Theology, there are many good books I can happily recommend.
Blessings,
The Archangel
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
This isn't the whole story. Certainly most of the Jews rejected God and Jesus. However, God's intention was always to save both Jews and Gentiles. We learn that in Genesis 12:
[1] Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. [2] And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. [3] I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” (Genesis 12:1–3 ESV, emphasis mine)
So, the grafting-in of the Gentiles was not any type of secondary plan; God intended it from eternity past.
The Archangel
Thank you archangel,I am glad to discuss these things here but I knew that I would not be able to convince most people on a forum such as this. I do want to be kind and nice because I am trying to persuade, not alienate but some things that are true must be stated clearly if the point is going to come across as it should. Your theological system teaches that Jn 6:44 is a fundamental of the Christian faith. It is not.
I will say this as kindly as I can but I would expect that most people commenting on the scriptures would show evidence of at least having read them. I get the sense from your comments that you haven't. I guess I have done all I can do with you.
Last edited:
- Status